Literature DB >> 32583239

Temporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance.

Tuğrul Sari1, Aslihan Usumez2, Thomas Strasser3, Abdurrahman Şahinbas4, Martin Rosentritt5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this investigation was to compare clinical performance and in vitro wear of temporary CAD/CAM and cartridge crowns. This study is an approach to estimate the influence of in vivo use and laboratory simulation on temporary crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 crowns were fabricated from each temporary CAD/CAM or cartridge material. Also, 10 crowns of each material were clinically applied for 14 days, and 80 identical duplicate restorations were investigated in the laboratory after storage in water (14 days; 37 °C) and subsequent thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML, 240.000 × 50N ML, 600 × 5°C/55 °C). After in vivo application or in vitro aging, facture force, superficial wear (mean and maximum), surface roughness (Ra, Rz), thermal weight loss (TGA), and heat of reaction (DSC) were determined for all crowns. STATISTICS: Bonferroni post hoc test; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The fracture resistance of the temporary materials varied between 1196.4 (CAD in vivo) and 1598.3 N (cartridge crown in vitro). Mean (maximum) wear data between 204.7 (386.7 μm; cartridge in vitro) and 353.0 μm (621.8 μm; CAD in vitro) were found. Ra values ranged between 4.4 and 4.9 μm and Rz values between 36.0 and 40.8 μm. DSC and TG analysis revealed small differences between the materials but a strong influence of the aging process.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of in vivo and in vitro aging led to no significant differences in fracture force and wear but differences in roughness, DSC, and TGA. SEM evaluation confirmed comparability. Comparison of CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials partially showed significant differences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In vitro aging methods might be helpful to estimate materials' properties before principal clinical application. CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials provided comparable good clinical performance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fracture force; In vitro testing; In vivo investigation; Provisional materials; Roughness; TCML; Temporary materials; Wear

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32583239     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03278-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  21 in total

Review 1.  A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics.

Authors:  David R Burns; David A Beck; Steven K Nelson
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 2.  Management of provisional restorations' deficiencies: a literature review.

Authors:  Michael Patras; Olga Naka; Spyridon Doukoudakis; Argiris Pissiotis
Journal:  J Esthet Restor Dent       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 2.843

3.  Provisional materials: key components of interim fixed restorations.

Authors:  Ronald D Perry; Britta Magnuson
Journal:  Compend Contin Educ Dent       Date:  2012-01

4.  Mechanical properties of urethane and bis-acryl interim resin materials.

Authors:  Ronald E Kerby; Lisa A Knobloch; Stanley Sharples; Alejandro Peregrina
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.426

5.  Performance of resin materials for temporary fixed denture prostheses.

Authors:  Sebastian Hahnel; Stephanie Krifka; Michael Behr; Carola Kolbeck; Reinhold Lang; Martin Rosentritt
Journal:  J Oral Sci       Date:  2019-03-30       Impact factor: 1.556

6.  Comparison between direct chairside and digitally fabricated temporary crowns.

Authors:  Adil O Abdullah; Sarah Pollington; Yi Liu
Journal:  Dent Mater J       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  A study to investigate and compare the physicomechanical properties of experimental and commercial temporary crown and bridge materials.

Authors:  Bana Abdulmohsen; Sandra Parker; Michael Braden; Mangala P Patel
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 5.304

8.  In vitro study of fracture strength of provisional crown materials.

Authors:  Isil Karaokutan; Gulsum Sayin; Ozlem Kara
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 1.904

9.  Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns.

Authors:  Adil Othman Abdullah; Effrosyni A Tsitrou; Sarah Pollington
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.698

10.  Influence of the material for preformed moulds on the polymerization temperature of resin materials for temporary FPDs.

Authors:  Philipp-Cornelius Pott; Hans Schmitz-Wätjen; Meike Stiesch; Michael Eisenburger
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 1.904

View more
  2 in total

1.  An Interdisciplinary Study Regarding the Characteristics of Dental Resins Used for Temporary Bridges.

Authors:  Ioana Mârțu; Alice Murariu; Elena Raluca Baciu; Carmen Nicoleta Savin; Iolanda Foia; Monica Tatarciuc; Diana Diaconu-Popa
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 2.948

2.  Comparison of Wear of Interim Crowns in Accordance with the Build Angle of Digital Light Processing 3D Printing: A Preliminary In Vivo Study.

Authors:  Hakjun Lee; Keunbada Son; Du-Hyeong Lee; So-Yeun Kim; Kyu-Bok Lee
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-25
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.